THE CHURCH WITHOUT THE EUCHARIST IS NO LONGER THE CHURCH

Source:  https://publicorthodoxy.org/2020/03/27/church-without-eucharist/

A (TELEPHONE) CONVERSATION WITH METROPOLITAN OF PERGAMON JOHN ZIZIOULAS (MARCH 23, 2020)

We wish to hear your views on the current situation, since your theology plays a great role in the present circumstances.

Metropolitan John: My theology, unfortunately, cannot be applied. In Greece they have already closed the churches, and the Divine Liturgy is not being served. Is it served in Serbia?

Taking into consideration the decision of the government that the number of people in one place be limited, as well as the issue of getting around and social distancing, the Patriarch Irinej’s newest decision is that services be held in churches but without more than five people.

Metropolitan John: That’s acceptable.

In America it was decided that the priest, chanter and altar server be present, in order for the Liturgy to be served, so that they might have the holy mysteries in order to commune the people. What do you think about that?

Metropolitan John: For me, the Church without the holy Eucharist is no longer the Church. On the other hand, the danger of transmitting this virus to others imposes on us the need of doing whatever is necessary, even if that means closing the Church. The Greek government has taken drastic measures due to the very serious matter at play.

Many have posed the question: What does John Zizioulas say? Since everyone knows that you had once said that in Orthodoxy a “private” Liturgy doesn’t exist.

The liturgy under the current conditions will be served for the life of the world. One priest will serve in order to allow the people to take communion. Let us not forget, the Liturgy is served “for those who are absent with good reason.” Those, who cannot come, are now everyone. I think it is an acceptable decision that a priest serves the liturgy in the church with two or three people. How he will forbid other from attending, I don’t know. I think the best decision, instead of completely closing the church, is to have the priest serve with up to five people. Therefore, the Liturgy should be served in churches, but the possibility of spreading the virus should be reduced to zero.

The Church of Greece will broadcast the Holy Liturgy via the Internet. Some in America will do the same. What is your opinion? 

I don’t agree with the Divine Liturgy being transmitted by television. I’m confined to my home and will not be able to attend Liturgy. However, I will not turn the television on in order to watch the Liturgy. I consider that an expression of impiety. It is impious for someone to sit and watch the Liturgy. 

We heard that the faithful in Greece will follow the Liturgy on television. Where will the Liturgy be served?

Metropolitan John: I think it will be televised from the Cathedral church of the Archdioce of Athens. Personally, as I said, I don’t like the Liturgy to be broadcasted on a TV channel. In Greece there is at least that one liturgy that will be served in the Cathedral church. In my opinion it could have been served in more churches, but there is the fear of spreading the disease. 

At the Liturgy one is either present or not present, we have already read this in your writings. What can Christians do on Sunday morning when they are prevented from attending Liturgy in a church and they have to stay at home? What would you suggest Christians under these current circumstances do?

Metropolitan John: Let a person remain at home and pray. The Church can prepare some service texts to encourage the faithful to read, for instance, the morning service in their homes, but not to read the text of the Liturgy. The Liturgy requires our presence. One cannot participate in the Liturgy from a distance. Therefore, let the faithful pray from their homes. 

When you say “prayer,” what do you mean specifically? To read those prayers they know or to have the bishops and priests recommend them something? 

Metropolitan John: The Dioceses can recommend a prayer rule; in my opinion, the Orthros (Sunday Matins) is sufficient. The Church should distribute the text for Orthros, for instance, in order for the faithful to read them at their homes during the time the Liturgy is being served. A televised broadcast of the Liturgy is not the right thing to do. On the other hand, a good solution is to have the Liturgy served by a priest and two or three people and, if possible, to distribute Holy Communion to the faithful. As far as I know, this is difficult now since we don’t have deacons who could deliver Communion. In the ancient Church Holy Communion was taken to those who were unable to attend. Thus, if this doesn’t exist, let the Liturgy be at least with five people. 

What do you recommend to the faithful concerning individual (private) prayers of each Christian?

Metropolitan John: The faithful should continue to pray, to offer their personal petitions to the Lord.

What would you call this state and this situation, since it is now extraordinary? You said that the Church without the Eucharist is not the Church and that the Eucharist must be preserved. This type or form of the Eucharist, what would you call it, that it not be turned into a “private“ rite?

Metropolitan John: If there are five people at the Liturgy it is no longer a private Liturgy. It is important that those who attend are not in danger and cannot endanger others.

As for the danger, however, no one can say that there is no danger in the matter of transmission.

Metropolitan John: As doctors tell us, the danger is minimized if distance is maintained and hygiene measurers are observed.

Therefore, it is excluded that the Eucharist can be reduced to a private matter. If the Liturgy is performed in the presence of several believers, is this danger avoided?

Metropolitan John: It is better than having fully closed Churches.

Some believe that in this case of limited participation of the faithful, the Church no longer exists as a Eucharistic community and assembly, and therefore they say that the Eucharist should not be performed. And they add: if it is not done at all (which is beyond our will and desire) then God will not leave us. So, they ask: if we do not have a church community assembled, why should we serve such a “limited” Liturgy?

Metropolitan John: A community (κοινωνία and κοινότητα) is never complete in terms of the participation of the entire community. There is always a minority present; however, it still represents and acts on behalf of all those who are absent. And of course, we pray for all those who are “absent for a reasonable cause,” i.e. who were prevented from attending. This is not a novelty in our Church. There have always been those who are absent from the Liturgy. Those who participate in it pray for those who are absent. As we know, some may be absent because they are ill or because they are on the road. However, one may also be absent because the state does not allow him or her to attend due to emergency. There is no substantial problem here because there is a community or a congregation of those few. It is better to have a community of a few than a state where there is no one in the Eucharistic assembly.

Some believe that those who participate in this three- or four-member liturgy are “privileged” and thus more favored than others?

Metropolitan John: What does “privileged” mean? Those who are present would very much like others to be present but are aware that they cannot. They do not look at it with exaltation or satisfaction that there are no others. They are aware that they represent those who are absent.

The dilemma some have is whether to deprive ourselves of the Holy Eucharist and thus help others (stopping the spread of the infection) or to serve the Eucharist in the hope that it will not harm others. Is it sufficient to comply with all measures to prevent the transmission of the infection?

Metropolitan John: We should prevent the spread of the infection because it is a huge risk of transmitting the virus. Not only to those who are in our immediate vicinity, but also to those who are further away. This is spread throughout society and why should we be the cause of such a spread of the virus?

Does the image of the Liturgy we now have, where it is confined to several believers around the priest, violate liturgical iconism? Does this limited gathering continue to iconize the Kingdom of God, which is the meaning of the Liturgy?

Metropolitan John: The small community does not diminish the image (iconization) of the future Kingdom. Very often, in many countries in Europe, I went to parishes whose temples were used by very few Orthodox believers. Yet the entire Holy Eucharist is offered for all the universe. A parish represents not only the local community, but also the entire Catholic Church. Therefore, the smallest temple represents the universe and summarizes the whole world.

Many fear that some elitism does not emerge from this state: those who are privileged in the Liturgy. Do you see any danger in that?

Metropolitan John: No, I see no danger.

In what sense?

Metropolitan John: It is enough for the local bishop or priest to allow an alternative presence so that the same parishioners do not always come. This week there are three or four, next week there will be another three or four faithful. The participation of others will be gradually made possible until this situation is over. 

Many people put it this way: it is not a question of whether the Church exists without the Eucharist, but whether faithful can refrain from participating in the Eucharist for a month or two. There is a view that we should not serve now because it is such a situation. Liturgies were abolished in some dioceses, where state authorities ordered a ban on gathering at the Liturgy. The bishops had to completely prevent the participation of believers, as in Greece. Are you satisfied with the decision in Greece that the Liturgy cannot be served until the end of the pandemic?

Metropolitan John: I don’t think that’s good. I believe that they could find another solution where the liturgy could be celebrated with the small participation of lay people. They chose that solution, but I do not think it was the best one. The decision not to attend the Liturgy could have been avoided.

If this happens in the whole world, what do you think, would the Church cease to exist then?

Metropolitan John: It is just a hypothesis. I do not think in reality that can happen. There will always be people who serve the Liturgy, for example, in monasteries.

Some say it only “keeps the flames going” (eucharistic flame) which is a nice, poetic image. Is that the theological and substantive answer?

Metropolitan John: That’s not the answer. Whenever something is not our choice but a necessity that comes from the outside then we do what is called an oikonomia. A lot of things are not quite right in practice, but since what is right cannot be valid, then we accept it only as oikonomia. And here we have just that today: we apply oikonomia things to deal with one serious problem. I view this as a measure of oikonomia.

You said and wrote that in ecclesiology it is not only taking Communion of the sacred gifts (communio in sacris) that is crucial, but also participation in the community of the saints (communio sanctorum). Some forget that we do not merely some “thing” from the Holy Altar which is taken and absorbed in the organism, but that with communion we participate in the community of All Saints. What can you say on this topic during this era of the coronavirus?

Metropolitan John: That community of Saints certainly exists, even when there is a small number of faithful and laity. It is the community of Saints, and not merely a community in a sanctuary. 

Do you have any comments on the manner of receiving communion? I assume that you have heard the current arguments on this topic. While some insist on giving communion from the same spoon, others are searching for other ways, in order to respond to the challenges of the epidemic and show their social responsibility. One of the local Churches ordered mandatory spoon disinfection, while another began using disposable spoons. What do you say? What oikonomia or dispensation should be applied here?

In the Liturgy of St. James the Brother t the faithful take communion separately, the Body separate from the Blood of the Lord. As we know, according to the order of this ancient liturgy, these are not both placed in the chalice. There are, therefore, various ways. I don’t agree with having disposable spoons for each person. I don’t think this is good. Instead, it is better for the faithful to receive the Body of Christ which would have been dipped in the Blood of Christ beforehand. In this manner the spread of the virus will be avoided. This is an ad hoc answer, of a provisional character. But I think ways can be found. Although the Church has not given much thought to other ways, I think it should do so.

Communing with a spoon dates back to the 11th or 12th century?

Metropolitan John: Yes. This is a considerably later practice and I think, at least temporarily, we should go back to the ancient solutions. I believe we will discover them. But who thinks of them today!? 

Some have suggested the following solution. Priests should prepare the particles of the Body of Christ from the Lamb and then steep the particles with the Blood of Christ. Then the people approach and take that Communion. What do you think of that?

Metropolitan John: I think this is a very good solution, since there is already fear among a group of faithful. Personally, I would like and desire that the faithful have no fear (from the holy Communion). I consider that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly the receiving of medicine immortality and I don’t think it is dangerous. Personally, it wouldn’t bother me to commune from one chalice during an epidemic or, even to use one common spoon. However, since there are those who, as the Apostle Paul says, are weak in faith, we must avoid scandalizing them. The Church must find a solution for them as well, to meet their needs, in order to avoid accusations that we Christians transmit infections or disease.

We notice that you consider that accusation, or testimony, which comes from outside the Church to be important. Do you think that the Church should be careful what image or impression it has on the world?

Metropolitan John: With the prevailing practice of taking Communion, I think that, in the event this disease spreads, many will accuse Christians of being guilty and many will say that the Church spread the infection. 

Is there a responsibility of the Church towards society and creation?

Metropolitan John: There certainly is. 

Your Eminence, we owe you much gratitude for this conversation. It is wonderful that our readers will have the opportunity to see your answers to these current issues.

Metropolitan John:I hope the one who reads this will read it correctly and not misinterpret me. I pray that the Lord helps us deal with this situation in the right way.

Translated from Serbian by Fr. Bratislav Krsic and Fr. Milovan Katanic

https://publicorthodoxy.org/2020/03/27/church-without-eucharist/

John Milbank, Postliberalism, Populism and the Left: An Offering to Athens

 source: https://antifono.gr/postliberalism-populism-and-the-left/

[This essay is the original text of John Milbank’s lecture at Megaron, Athens Concert Hall, on 28 November 2018. It is posted on antifono.gr together with the Greek translation (see here), made by Nikos Manolopoulos and Vassilis Xidias. A slightly shortened version of the English text is posted on the web-page Jacobite (Jan 2019)].

What is the main line of fracture in global politics today? Does it remain one between the now traditional Right and Left, or has a new Populist versus Liberal division supplanted the old one?

For those on the Left, the instinct will be to say that any such supplanting is either illusory or perverse. However, that verdict could represent a triumph of political prejudice over political critique. After all, the Right-Left faultline has existed only since the French Revolution. Originally it denoted a division between those more devoted to the legacy of the ancien régime on the one hand and those in favour of a more liberal and democratic approach, which might have various connotations, on the other.

To understand this genealogy is also to see that in fact it is what we have come to understand as the normative political division that is itself somewhat illusory and perverse. What survives, after all, today, of the conservatism that opposed electoral democracy and was rooted in landed aristocracy, an international dynastic order and the cult of sacral monarchy? Yet this was what originally defined the European Right throughout the Nineteenth Century and even somewhat beyond.

What is more, even the assumption that such a Right represented the true, deep and ancient past is rather suspect. To the contrary, it was in important ways just as ‘modern’ as left liberalism. Where the latter thought that order could only be distilled from respect for the individual and the aggregation of individual votes, the former, conservative position considered that it could only be imposed from a unified sovereign centre. Liberalism was a politics of the Many, Conservatism a politics of the One; but in either case a specifically modern and post-Hobbesian numerical calculus in the face of an assumed natural anarchy was to the fore.

Equally squeezed out by either side, as to a degree noted by a more critical liberal thinker like Alexis de Tocqueville, was a more qualitative politics of the mediating Few. By this I mean a more genuinely traditional politics focussed not exclusively on the problem of order, but equally on the question of positive political purpose. On the pursuit of true human flourishing both collectively and individually, a flourishing taken to include participation in political life and the distilling of rule out of such participation on the part of citizens.

Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and St Vlassios, The Regime of the Orthodox Church

[source: http://www.parembasis.gr/index.php/5796-2019-06-13]

Prompted by the Ukrainian issue, there are discussions about ‘primacy’ within the Church. Some people reject it, and others misinterpret it. The Roman Catholics usually interpret primacy in terms of essentialism, and some contemporary Orthodox theologians interpret it in terms of personalism.

My purpose in the present article on this subject is not to set out the theological dimensions of the problem, but to stress the fact that in the Orthodox Church we speak more about the Church’s synodical and hierarchical regime. Some views will be highlighted that I have previously stressed in other contexts.

1. Synodality and the Hierarchical System

The synodical regime of the Church is connected with the hierarchical system, and in fact synodality (conciliarity) is stressed together with the hierarchical system. In any case, this is true, from another perspective, in states and in democratic regimes, as there is a popular assembly, but, at the same time, there is also a hierarchy of ministries and authorities: not everyone has the same rights and duties.

The Greek word synodos is made up of two words, syn ‘with’ and odos ‘way’, and denotes a shared journey. This is the context in which we should look at the expression that the Divine Liturgy is a “synod of heaven and earth”, that is to say, a meeting and a shared journey.

The word hierarchy denotes the leader of the sacred rites, the bishop or hierarch, but also the hierarchical arrangement of charismas and ministries. The synod, therefore, does not exclude the hierarchy, and the hierarchy does not exclude the synod. We find this word hierarchy in the works of St Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Celestial Hierarchy and On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, in which nine companies of angels are identified, which are divided into three sets of three, and which are linked with the earthly ecclesiastical hierarchy, as regards the rites (Baptism, Synaxis and Chrism), the three stages of ascent to God (purification, illumination and perfection), the three degrees of the priesthood (hierarch, priest and deacon), and as regards the three orders of laity (catechumens-excommunicated, faithful and therapeutae-monks). The phrase “functioning of the synodical regime” also denotes this reality.

It has been observed (by Alexander Schmemann) that the Church’s regime is regarded as “synodically hierarchical” or “hierarchically synodical”. The hierarchical principal is not contrary to the synodical principle, as the synodical principle is established by means of the hierarchical principle. When one of the two is absent, the other cannot exist. In that case, there is no real expression of the Church.

This interpretative explanation of the terms is very useful for what will be said below with regard to the functioning of the synodical and hierarchical regime of the Church of Greece.

2. The Divine Liturgy as the Model of the Hierarchical Synodality of the Church

As we know, the Church is the Body of Christ and the communion of deification, which means that those who are members of the Church are members of the Body of Christ and are on their way to deification. This is not a static state, but continuous movement, an ongoing journey, which St Maximus the Confessor calls “ever-moving stability” and “stationary motion”: “It will acquire ever-moving stability, the never-ending enjoyment of divine things, and stationary motion, the insatiable appetite for these things.” The Church is not an established institution, but an expedition in Christ, a journey towards participation in the Kingdom of God. This Kingdom is experienced starting from now, and it will come in its fullness in the future.

The Divine Eucharist is the centre of ecclesiastical life. For this reason, the manner in which the Divine Eucharist is celebrated depicts exactly what the Church is, as well as showing what her ultimate aim is.

St Maximus the Confessor’s Mystagogy makes clear the character and purpose of the Church and the Divine Eucharist. Ecclesiology cannot be examined independently of Eucharistology.

The Divine Eucharist is truly the “Synod of heaven and earth”. St John Chrysostom writes very characteristically:

“Oh, how great are Christ’s gifts! Hosts of angels praise Him in heaven; in churches on earth human choirs imitate their doxology. In heaven, Seraphim sing aloud the thrice-holy hymn; on earth the human multitude sings the same hymn. A common heavenly and earthly feast is celebrated: one eucharist, one rejoicing, one joyful choir. The indescribable condescension of the Lord has brought this about; the Holy Spirit has put it together; and this harmony of sounds was orchestrated by the Father’s good pleasure. From on high come harmonious melodies, and, moved by the Holy Trinity as though by a plectrum, pleasant and blessed music resounds, the angelic hymn, the unending symphony. This is the outcome of our effort here; this is the fruit of our gathering.”

The central point of this passage by St John Chrysostom is “one eucharist, one rejoicing, one joyful choir” of angels and human beings, the departed and the living.

The hierarchy of the charismas and ministries of those who take part in the Divine Liturgy can be differentiated into many degrees. There are the catechumens, those preparing for baptism, and the faithful who have been baptised. There are laypeople in different spiritual states, who are being purified, illuminated and deified. There are clergy of different orders: bishops, priests and deacons. And there are those who serve at the Divine Liturgy in various ways, as subdeacons, readers, chanters and helpers. They all participate in the Mystery (Sacrament) of the Divine Liturgy, but in different ways, so there is synodality but also a hierarchy. The laypeople take part in the Divine Liturgy by praying and taking Holy Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. The chanters chant on behalf of the people. The deacons address supplications to God for the people. The priests offer the bloodless rite, with the permission of their bishops, and the bishops are the presidents of the Eucharistic assembly.

Although those present at the Divine Liturgy share in the great Mystery, and the Clergy approach the altar and pray, it is the president of the Divine Eucharist who offers the bloodless sacrifice and recites the Prayer of Consecration, which is a prayer to the Father to send the Holy Spirit and to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. In this way, there is a concelebration, but particular categories of spiritual charismas and ministries can be distinguished. Even when clergy of the same rank concelebrate, the first of the celebrants offers the bloodless sacrifice and the others participate in the Mystery. The celebration of the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist presupposes someone who takes the lead. Therefore synodality works in combination with the hierarchical system.

This distinction between the charismatic ministries in the Divine Liturgy is also clear in the book of the Revelation of St John, which presents the vision of the heavenly Church and the heavenly Divine Liturgy that St John the Evangelist saw. As mentioned above, it is, of course, linked with the earthly Divine Liturgy.

In this vision of the heavenly Divine Liturgy we see “one like the Son of Man” among the seven lampstands (Rev. 1:12ff.); the One sitting on the throne, and the twenty-four elders sitting on thrones “around the throne”; the four living creatures in the midst of the throne, and the worship the twenty-four elders and the liturgical creatures offer to Him Who sits upon the throne (Rev. 4:1ff.); the Lamb standing “as though it had been slain” “in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders”, and their worship of this Lamb (Rev. 5:6ff.); the altar and “under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God” (Rev. 6:9ff.); the “great multitude” “standing before the throne and before the Lamb” (Rev. 7:9ff.); the censer and the smoke of the incense (Rev. 8:3ff.); the song of the redeemed (Rev. 14:1ff.); the hymn ‘Alleluia’ (Rev. 19:1ff.); the “marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev. 19:9ff.); the new heaven and the new earth, and the holy city of Jerusalem (Rev. 21:1ff.).

This entire experience of revelation is also the heavenly Liturgy and the pattern for the earthly Divine Liturgy. There is a spiritual fragrance about all these things. The prayers and the order of the Divine Liturgy show a synodical and hierarchical journey and ascent to the heights of Mount Sinai, Golgotha, and the new tomb of the Resurrection.

The Divine Liturgy not only depicts the experience on Mount Tabor, but also expresses it and shares in it. On Mount Tabor, Christ was in the middle, in the uncreated Light, which was pouring forth from within, as Christ’s Body is also a source of uncreated Light. The Prophets were on each side of Christ, talking to Him. And the three Disciples fell on their faces because, although they were asking to construct created tabernacles for Christ, Moses and Elijah, they themselves were under the uncreated tabernacle, the bright cloud, the presence of the Holy Spirit. All these spiritual states are reminiscent of the celebration of the Divine Liturgy.

Also, through this revelatory experience of St John the Evangelist’s, the earthly created church building took shape. We see the same in the case of Moses, who constructed the tabernacle of witness on the basis of the uncreated tabernacle not made with hands, which he saw on Mount Sinai, and later the Temple of Solomon was constructed on the same basis, as well as Christian churches, which are divided into the narthex, the nave and the Holy of Holies, which is the sanctuary.

Consequently, in the manner in which the Divine Liturgy is celebrated and the place in which it is celebrated we see the synodical and hierarchical structure of the ecclesiastical regime.

3. The Synodical and Hierarchal Regime at Every Level of Church Life

The Divine Liturgy, both by the way in which it is celebrated and its ‘spirit’, has always been the model for experiencing the whole life of the Church. In any case, the Divine Liturgy is not an isolated part of ecclesiastical life, but the central core and foundation of the whole structure of the Church.

It is characteristic that iconographers who depict the meetings of the Ecumenical Councils use as their basis the icon of Pentecost, when the Disciples received the Holy Spirit. This model, however, also represents the manner in which every Divine Eucharist is concelebrated, when the bishop’s throne is in the apse behind the altar. The Divine Eucharist, the mystery of Pentecost, and the meetings of the Councils are interconnected, to a relative extent.

From this perspective, the Church’s whole administration and pastoral ministry should function on the model of the Divine Eucharist, in other words, synodically and hierarchically, and should be an extension of it. In any case, any split between the sacramental and administrative life of the Church is inconceivable. The synodical regime of the Church at the so-called administrative and pastoral level must function in the same way as the Divine Liturgy is celebrated, although the analogy cannot be exact. The synodical structure of the Church and the synodical administration of ecclesiastical affairs constitute the mystery of the Church. There is an excellent analysis of this based on the sacred Canons by Archimandrite George Kapsanis, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of St Grigoriou on the Holy Mountain, in an important study of his.

The structure of the spiritual life functions according to the theological concept of synergy, as God acts and man co-operates. Christ brings about deification, whereas man undergoes deification; he participates in deification. And this happens to varying degrees.

Synodality and the hierarchical system ought to operate in the relations between bishops, and at meetings of the Hierarchy, as an experience and extension of the Divine Liturgy. The Synod of Bishops is a concelebration, an extension of the Divine Liturgy and of prayer. This is the reason why we begin meetings of the Hierarchy by invoking the Paraclete, and we finish its business with the words “By the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God have mercy upon us and save us.”

At these meetings there is the President, who is not only present and supervises the way in which the Synod (the Hierarchy or the Standing Holy Synod) works, but also institutes its sacred work, as also happens in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. There are also co-administrators or concelebrants. The thirty-fourth Apostolic Canon requires this for the operation of the Metropolitan system: “The bishops…must acknowledge him who is first among them [the protos] and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent” in synodical matters, although not in matters that concern particular dioceses. But neither may he who is first, the protos, “do anything without the consent of all.” On these conditions, “there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

This synodical regime ought to function in the administration of the local Holy Metropolises of the Church, and in the relations between bishops, priests and laypeople, because laypeople are not ‘passive’ members of the Church, but Christians with spiritual gifts who are able to share in the uncreated grace of God, and who have the blessing of being shepherded towards their own personal salvation.

The bishop is the president of the Eucharistic assembly, but also the president of the whole canonical structure of the diocese and the metropolis, as the administration of the Church takes place within the framework of the pastoral ministry, and this pastoral ministry is an expression of the Eucharistic atmosphere, and is dependent on the participation of all the members of the Church in the Mystery (Sacrament) of the Divine Liturgy. It is in this sense that we speak about the bishop-centred regime of the Church, which is not, however, independent of her synodical and hierarchical regime. It is significant that the sacred Canons refer to the manner in which we take part in the Divine Liturgy. What is more, even the arrangement of the bishop’s throne behind the altar presupposes that the priests stand at a lower level than the bishop’s throne, although not on the same level as the laity, because there is a hierarchy of charismas.

The synodical and hierarchical structure of the ecclesiastical regime, as an extension of the Divine Liturgy, should also function between priests and laypeople in their parishes, as well as between abbots and monks in monasteries. The synodical and hierarchical regime functions in all aspects of ecclesiastical life. We should not expect to find it only in the Synods of the Hierarchy; it should also operate in the other expressions of Church life. It is not possible for there to be factions and clandestine meetings in ecclesiastical life. “The Church is regarded as a continuous synod”, as this is what the word Ekklēsia‘Church’ means.

It is a basic principal of ecclesiastical life that anyone who knows how to work synodically and hierarchically as a priest in his parish and as metropolitan in his Metropolis, is also able to work in a canonical and synodical manner in other functions of Church life, and in the Synods of the Church’s Hierarchy. Ecclesiological illnesses start from the way in which the parish and the Metropolis are structured, and they also express themselves at higher ecclesiastical levels. In any case, carcinogenesis begins from a cell and spreads to the whole body. Anyone who is unable to act synodically in his parish and Metropolis is also unable to function synodically and ecclesiastically in meetings of bishops.

From all this it is clear that the regime of the Church is synodical and functions hierarchically, and it is also hierarchical and functions synodically. Synodality does not abolish the hierarchical system; nor does the hierarchical system abolish synodality.

This is also true of the way in which all the Orthodox Churches function, just as it also applies to pan-Orthodox Liturgies. There is obviously a protos, the one who is first, who is responsible for the good functioning of the Body of the Church. Autocephaly, as I have stressed in another article of mine, does not mean ‘autocephalarchy’ (independence). In any case, Christ is the head of the Church, and even the term ‘autocephaly’ (which literally means ‘being its own head’) cannot be understood in an absolute sense. Rather, this term denotes the self-administration of some regions, and not their full independence.

In the Orthodox Church there is a protos, who co-exists hierarchically with the other primates. Essentially, all the bishops are equal among themselves, since they all have the high-priesthood of Christ. However, according to the canonical system of ecclesiastical administration, they are not all equal in honour, and this is understood in accordance with their administrative and Eucharistic position within the Church. But that is the subject of another article of mine.

The holy anarchists

By Theodoros Riginiotis

Translation by FATHER-K

http://father-k.blogspot.com/2009/08/holy-anarchists-by-th-i-riginiotes.html

As of the 4^th century A.D., the desert lands of Egypt saw the beginning of the longest-living anarchic society of all time: that of the Christian anachorites. These were people who had chosen to live there, in order to find the tranquility that was necessary for their praying. Comparatively speaking: when we want to listen very attentively to some very subtle music, we usually shut doors and windows and isolate ourselves in our quietest corner (according to fr. Sophrony of Essex).The same applies when you want to hear the voice of God – you isolate yourself in the quietest place you can find. You don’t do it out of spite or aversion to the world, or to your body or to the joys of life etc.. This has been made clear innumerable times in the history of Christianity; quite simply, the quietest place on earth that enables one to hear is the desert.

This amazing “ultra-desert” society -as it was called- albeit host to several monasteries (which were organized societies complete with a hierarchy), was basically an “anarchic” society overall, because it did not possess any authoritative structure whatsoever, except for the informal (but most essential) relationship between teacher and pupil, i.e. that of a “Geron” (Elder) and a “subject” (pupil). Every new addition to the denizens of the desert would be initiated through this form of relationship to the spiritual sciences, for example to humility and discernment (the ability to evaluate spiritual experiences). This form of relationship was liberal: you had to be absolutely obedient to your Elder (to trust him with your very life, in order to release yourself from your dependence on your personal desires), but you could also leave him to go to another Elder, or even to live without an Elder. No-one would force you to do anything.

In this society -which was replete with more love than our secular, conventional societies- many lost the path; however, thousands did attain sainthood. The “Gerontikon” (a collection of narrations about the desert Elders) mentions how saint Jacob of Panepho, when asked by a certain wavering monk to what spiritual heights a denizen of the ultra-desert can reach, the saint lifted up his arms in prayer and flames sprang from his fingertips. “If you want to, make your whole become a fire” he replied.

Naturally the ultra-desert society was not cut off from the worldwide Church, nor was it hostile towards the other expressions of Christian living. Even more so, it did not deny priesthood and the holy sacraments, which were given to us by God to help us in our union with Him as well as between us. This is why monasteries and anachorites coexisted harmoniously, while some anachorites even ended up as Bishops and Fathers of the Church, without regarding that this conflicted with “their special way” of approaching God. Anachorites would visit (or have among them) priests canonically ordained by a Bishop; they would officiate and they would partake of the Body and the Precious Blood of Christ. But in the ancient and the Orthodox Church, priesthood was not an “institution of power”; it was seen as a gift of the Holy Spirit, and the priest was not some kind of “representative of God”, but was the bearer of that gift (and of the responsibility) of performing the Divine Liturgy, of confessional and the other fundamental ecclesiastic practices and of bringing the immaculate sacraments to other Christians. As a person, that same priest could well be subject (as a pupil) to a holy teacher, who could quite easily not be a priest.

The fact that even the most “spiritually advanced” anachorites received Holy Communion is evident in cases like saint Maria the Egyptian, who, although withdrawn into the depths of the Palestinian desert for decades and herself a major teacher of holiness, God nevertheless sent her saint Zosimas to give her Holy Communion, prior to her repose.

Is the ultra-desert now extinct?

I would say that this society was preserved intact up until the Muslim conquest of northern Africa, although I cannot say for certain that it has ceased to exist altogether. What is important is that soon afterwards, other, similar “ultra-desert” societies sprang up in the desert of Palestine, on the Athos peninsula, in the forests of Russia, but also in the forests of France, the islands around Britain and in many other parts of Europe, at a time when all of Europe knew of only one Christianity: the Orthodox one.

It should be noted that for every anarchic society to survive successfully, a spiritual cultivation of very high standards is imperative for its members. This was the cultivation that the Christian anachorites strove to attain: the spiritual cultivation, whose first stage consisted of the catharsis (cleansing) of the heart and whose last stage (of a lengthy and arduous course) was their union with the Triadic God through Christ (theosis-deification), which relates to the loving union with all the creations of the world. This last point also reveals that the ultra-desert society was not a “strange” kind, or one that was “mortality-oriented”, even though all its denizens were celibate. They were indeed celibate, but they were not barren: their spiritual state surpassed marriage, because marriage begins as a union with one person, whereas they strove (and succeeded, depending on the degree of their spiritual progress) for a union with everyone and everything. A monk is one who is “apart from everyone and united with everyone” (ο πάντων κεχωρισμένος και πάσι συνηρμοσμένος), according to the 4^th century ascetic author, Evagriosof Pontus. Of course the word “monk” implied people of both sexes.

One more clarification: anachorites did not live entirely isolated from others, except only those who had reached the highest stage of spiritual progress (sanctity) and were able to be perfectly united with everyone without even seeing anyone (even a dedicated scientist can live entirely isolated, because he desires to apply himself without distractions to his science). These great teachers (who identified with their fellow-man to such a degree that they would even feel the other’s joy or pain as though it were their own), had even surpassed certain natural human needs: sleep, food, warmth… Actually, they were so replete with the Grace of the Triadic God (by having surrendered their whole being into His hands) that they were already savoring the heights of Paradise and therefore those needs had been overcome on their own. Their strict ascetic labours (fasting, night-vigils, sleeping on the ground, etc.) had also contributed to this union with God but these labours did not achieve that status automatically, as “there can be extreme ascesis of a suspicious nature” (to recall the words of the great Mother of the desert, saint Syncletike). The ascetic struggle in ancient –and Orthodox– Christianity aspires to the unconditional opening of our heart to God. It is not a “spiritual and physical exercise” that will activate “powers within us”, thus making us “conscientious and strong”, as is the case in the religions of central and eastern Asia.

As a rule, these hermits used to live in clusters of huts, with a short distance between them (enough for a marginal human association that would allow them to exercise that spiritual love in practice); this proximity of their abodes was also a solace in the loneliness of the desert and a guard against temptations – especially the biggest temptation of all: the illusion of having attained holiness, which in the language of the desert is called “delusion”. This is why we find so many wise dialogues between anachorites in their bios, but also so many instances of a warm and profound behaviour. The desert is not an absolute isolation.

Secular anarchy and the desert

Modern-day, rebel thinkers who have removed God from their hearts without ever having discovered Him have instead discovered anarchism; and yet, they never learnt of the existence of this anarchic society, despite the fact that during the time they were struggling or writing about it in their own various ways, at least the Russian and the Athonite ultra-deserts were already flourishing. The latter (the Holy Mountain Athos) continues to prosper to this day, albeit confronting the various difficulties and adventures of human history.

Saints have been produced and continue to be produced, even in bustling cities, unobtrusively and humbly, in the way that befits our humble God (which is nothing like the bogey-man that others acknowledge, known as ‘morality’). Most certainly, every saint – man or woman – regardless whether they live in a condominium or a wooden shack, possibly even raising ten children, also has a piece of desert in his/her heart. They need it, in order to withdraw there and to hearken to the subtlest music in the world: prayer.

We and the spirits of the departed

From: asian-aroma

 By Theodoros Riginiotis

Translation by George Stavropoulos

Christians have a very serious relationship with our dead ones. We often speak to them and we continuously talk to God about them.

To be more precise, for us, these who have left their body are not dead but alive (metaphorically we call them “sleeping” and this is the way we regard them, as living, who have simply left and live in another place. The place were we bury their bodies is called “cemetery” (from the greek word “κοιμητήριο” = sleeping place).

On the contrary, we consider dead those people who have taken God, His love and His grace out of their heart, no matter if they live among us or have moved to the place of the souls. This is the real death, the eviction of God from our heart, whereas when we allow Him to enter our heart we are fully alive, either here, or at the place of the souls.

When we say that God enters our heart, we do not mean that he takes control of us and removes our spirit and abolishes our freedom (God never does that, only devious spirits do that). We mean that God’s grace comes into us (His life-giving, uncreated, eternal and luminous energy) and transforms us bringing us closer to Him. This transformation is closely related to the sacraments of Christian Church, as we will see shortly. God willing, we will now see what we know about the dead, or “departed”.

Jesus and the dead

When Jesus died on the cross, His human soul transferred to the place of the dead (”Hades” in Greek), where it talked to the dead, as it had done to the living (one might want to see the relevant orthodox icon “Descent to Hades”, as well as the testimony of great and saint apostle Peter, Jesus’ disciple, in his first epistle (letter), found in the Holy Bible, chapter 3, verse 19-20). He then took the souls of the dead from Hades and brought them to the place where souls go now, a place called “heaven”. There, the souls of those dead before Christ together with the souls of the people who lived after Christ, wait the resurrection, so that they will live in God’s kingdom assuming their bodies again, but this time as immortal and luminous bodies.

The people who lived in this world having advanced towards God with pure heart, foretaste in heaven – the place of the souls – the indescribable happiness generated by the relationship with Christ, by the sight of His heavenly beauty and His uncreated Light. This happiness is proportional to their kindness and will reach its full extent after the resurrection of all people. We call this happiness “paradise”.

On the contrary, those who lived in this world confining their love to their egoistic self, foretaste in heaven the grief generated by the relationship with Christ (whom they do not love), by the sight of His heavenly beauty and His uncreated Light. This grief is proportional to the distortion caused by their egoism and will reach its full extent after the resurrection of all people. We call it “hell”.

A reference to the resurrection and to the final state, in which all people (of all races and ages, as well as of all religions) will live, is found in the words of Christ himself, in the Gospel of Mathew, chapter 25, 31-46. This description must be considered in the context of God’s love for all people and for all creatures. God does not “send to hell” the impenitent sinners, but the state of their own soul is itself the hell. The state that does not allow them to taste the indescribable happiness of paradise.

The departed Saints

By becoming human, Christ united with the human nature and offered to every person the ability to unite with Him. But because Christ is also God, the person who unites with Him at the same time unites with God. Thus, the union with Christ makes a person “holy creature”, in other words, Saint. We know from the experience of all generations of Christianity, and especially from the experience of our Holy Teachers, that to unite with Christ just being “good people” is not enough, but holy grace is required, this is why the holy sacraments were delivered to us (baptism, confession, holy Communion, e.t.c.), with which a person properly prepares oneself and calls God to send him His grace.

Every simple person, accepting God’s grace inside him and responding to it by loving God and his fellow people and forgiving those who want to harm him, or have already done so, approaches God so much, as much as he has progressed on that road. He becomes, that is, “little saint” (=he receives a little holiness). Whereas, those who have progressed farther in that road and reach to the point to love God and the others, even their enemies, much more than they love themselves, are the real Saints, those who are often granted from God the gift to perform even miracles.

The fervent, sincere, and persistent prayers of people to the true God are accepted at the time and in the way that He wants. The prayers of the Saints are more accepted, not only while they live here, among us, but also when their souls have departed to heaven and are foretasting paradise. This is why, when God reveals that a departed christian is Saint, we speak to him (through our prayer but also with the church ceremonies performed at the day of his remembrance) and ask from him to pray to God for us and for all the world. Also, we apply to him by painting his icon or dedicating a church to his name. There are innumerable cases, that reveal that the saints respond from heaven and answer our prayers. This is what I meant above, saying that we often speak with our dead.

God has many ways to reveal that a person is Saint: for example, his bones may release scent or even sweet oil (holy scented oil) or people may be cured from illnesses, or other miracles may be performed through his bones. The Saint may appear in dreams or visions to people with clear heart, e.t.c.. Of course, in all such cases we must be alert to make sure that these revelations are true, because it could be a hoax or an enemy trap, meaning a trap from devious spirits, who want to mislead people and make them their followers. When it is certain that this is a true revelation of a Saint, the Church includes the Saint officially in the calendar and assigns a day dedicated to his memory. Usually it is the day the Saint passed away and is called “birth day”, as if that day the Saint was born in heaven.

The existence of Saints and their interventions in our life from heaven prove that there is no reincarnation, and that the souls will never “perish”, but the souls of people are eternal and remain always the souls of the specific persons, with the specific name, personality, memories, feelings, e.t.c. And will remain so until they are resurrected, assuming again their body, incorruptible and eternal, to live eternally as psychosomatic beings, without dying never again.

Even someone who is not an important and miraculous Saint, but whose soul is clean and foretastes paradise, can help living people by praying to God about them. One such case is recorded in Evergetinos, an ancient orthodox book, where an unknown dead person (obviously having a foretaste of paradise) appeared and cured the injured leg of a traveler, who had found his body lying on the road, and had buried it. The people who foretaste paradise see our own world, because paradise is the strongest relation with all beings. But people who foretaste hell do not see our own world, because hell is a state of solitude, since the egoism of those people essentially isolated them eternally to their own self.

We and the souls

We do not worship the souls of the dead, because we know that only Triadic God we must worship. The souls of people, as we are taught by the Holy Bible and by all the holy christian teachers, are not from the same substance with God, but are God’s creations, created from nothing, like our bodies and all the material and the spiritual world are. Only the Holy Trinity is uncreated. The Father bears the Son before all ages, and proceeds (=sends out) the Holy Spirit – He brings Them into existence through His substance, He does not create Them. On the contrary, He creates the souls when a person is conceived inside his mother’s womb.

So, the souls are not divine. They are what we, living people, are: God’s creations who worship God and only God. We love people, regardless if they are here or in heavens, we pray to God for them or address them, if God has revealed that they are Saints, but we do not worship them. We do not worship Saints either. Only God we worship.

So, when a person departs from this world to go to heaven, we immediately start to talk to God about him. In this way we try to help the state of his soul, so if it was not good enough to foretaste paradise, we may comfort it with our prayers. Since hell is associated with total loneliness, it is not strange that living people’s interest for the souls, if fervent, sincere, and persistent, has the power to alleviate this loneliness and bring relief to the state of those souls.

The vision experienced by St. Macarios of Egypt, written in the Gerontiko (an ancient book narrating the stories of holy hermits of the desert), proves that. St. Macarios, while walking in the desert, unearthed, by mistake, a scull with his walking stick. He then bent down, buried the scull with respect and prayed for the person to whom the scull belonged. Then, the soul appeared to him and informed him that, while living, he was a demon worshipper (a priest of Isis) and now he was in hell. “And how is it there?” asked the Saint. “Everything is in the fire”, replied the soul. “And we are all tied up back to back. But, when you pray for us, we see a little of each other, for as long as the prayer lasts.”

We know from holy christian teachers that the fire mentioned by the soul, is the Light of God, which illuminates everything in the other world. The sensation experienced by those who see This Light through the distortion of their egoism is described as “fire of hell”.

St. Macarios of Egypt was so good that when a young woman, who was pregnant by some secret lover, falsely accused him that the child was his, he accepted the accusation, suffered all kinds of insults from the local people and started to work double, in order to support the woman and her child. And when later the truth was revealed, he left secretly and never tried to clear his name.

Also, the case of Saint Gregorios the Dialog (as well as other cases) prove that the fervent, sincere, and persistent prayer of living people for the dead has the ability to even convert the state of a soul from hell to paradise, at least when that particular soul has the required preconditions for this conversion (that is, if the soul is not totally corrupted). The Saint prayed fervently, “shedding rivers of tears”, for the salvation of the soul of the Roman emperor Traianos, when informed of an action of charity that he had performed. And later, he was informed by God that his prayers were accepted.

Talking to God about souls

Of course, all of us hope that the souls of our beloved are in the state of foretasting paradise, but only for the Saints can we be sure. So, as already mentioned, when a person’s soul departs from this world, we immediately start to talk to God about that person. In other words, we immediately start to pray.

For us, all people are equal, therefore the following apply to everybody: men, women, or children, irrespective of their social status.

If that person is not an orthodox christian, the only thing to be done is our personal or team prayer for him, which may be accompanied by fasting or some other small or big sacrifice, which will make our heart cleaner and in this way more appropriate to send our prayers to God. We do not perform for him any “official” ceremonies in our churches, because the first step and the necessary condition for these ceremonies to be effective, is the holy baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity. The holy baptism “transforms” the person to the “good olive tree”, to the “real grapevine”, to Christ. Therefore, in the absence of baptism, we can offer the prayer, with all the warmth and strength of our souls, the fasting probably, or some other sacrifice, but there are no church ceremonies. They have no effect.

If the person departing for heaven is an orthodox christian, the first thing we do after his departure is a church ceremony, in which all of us participate, called “care” of the body of that person. During this ceremony we ask God for the first time (all of us together, as a Church (in other words, as a single body) to rest the soul of our brother “in the Light of His face”.

Next, we bury the body into the ground and place a cross at the burial point, the symbol of the victory of Christ against death. We do not burn the body, because for us, although it is not holy so as to worship it, it is however worthy of respect. It is worth our respect because: a) Christ, the age-old God, Son of the Father-God, assumed exactly the same body as ours (we call it “homoousian” = consubstantial, from the greek words “όμο”=same + “ουσία” = substance, meaning from the same substance) and because he was the New Adam, the grace His own human body received was conveyed to all mankind, b) every christian has received personally on his own body the grace of God, since he was baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, was chrismated with sweet oil (holy scented oil) and received the holy body and blood of Jesus, during the sacrament of the holy Communion, c) if that person has come very close to God, the holy grace is intensely present in his relics (=bones), which become “holy relics” – if we burn the body, we will deprive ourselves, the society, the whole world, from a source of holy grace, and it is possible that we will never realize that the person reached a state of Sainthood, as Sainthood is often revealed through the holy relics (which release scent, holy oil, and perform miracles).

After the burial, a series of church ceremonies begins, called “commemorations”( = remembrances”) and in these also we ask God for the repose of our brother. During “commemorations”, a very small portion from the holy bread of the holy Communion is dedicated by name to the departed brother, who, in this way is commemorated in the “inside” of the holy sacrament. Commemorations are performed at the third day a person died, then at the eighth day, then at the fortieth day, then at the end of the third month, and then every three months until the completion of the first year, and then every year on the date the person died.

Except from the commemorations, christians are in the habit of presenting to the priest the names of our departed ancestors and brothers, so that he can commemorate them during the holy Communion during the divine liturgy that he will celebrate on Sunday. Messages sent (with God’s permission) by departed people to living people through their dreams, reveal that this commemoration offers significant benefit to the state of the soul. Especially, when this commemoration is done during forty consecutive divine liturgies, which is called “sarantaleitourgo” (=forty liturgies, from the greek word “σαράντα” = forty).

One of the innumerable testimonies that reveal how much benefit to the souls the commemoration during the divine liturgy has, is the case of St. Theodosius Chernigoff (of Russia,1896). The Saint appeared to monk Alexios(1916), who had lovingly performed the exhumation of his relics, and told him: “I thank you for getting tired for me, but I ask you to mention my parents’ names, Nikitas and Maria, during the divine liturgy.” Fr. Alexios was surprised and asked him: “You, being saint and praying directly to God for everybody, you ask from me to commemorate your parents?” And the Saint answered him: “You are right, but the benefit they will have by commemorating their names inside the divine liturgy is much greater than the benefit that my prayers will offer.” When later the monastery’s book of commemorations was found, where Saint Theodosius was abbot, it was proved that his parents’ names were exactly those he had told fr. Alexios (and were previously unknown)..

The church, except from the prayers for the departed sent to God in every christian ceremony, has assigned one day of the week to be specially dedicated to the commemoration of the departed (meaning the prayer for the repose of their souls) and this day is Saturday. The church has also assigned some special Saturdays to be dedicated to the commemoration of all the departed, from the beginning of the existence of the mankind on Earth until the present day. These Saturdays are named “Saturdays of the souls”. Also, a special prayer for the departed is read during the important church ceremony of the Vespers of Kneeling during the Sunday of Pentecost.

Apart from the above, Christians are on the habit of privately lighting a small oil lamp as a symbol of our prayer to God, so that our departed ancestors and brothers will experience His Light with contentment. Also, we burn incense, as a symbol of our prayer, which rises to heaven like the smoke of the incense and which must smell pleasantly (meaning that the prayer must be done with pure heart, devoid of evilness, hatred, egoism, and without desire of exploitation of other people), as the smoke of the incense smells pleasantly. We dedicate cresset and incense to our beloved departed not only at home (near their pictures) but at their graves as well, which we visit whenever we want. Some times we call the priest to the grave to perform a small ritual (”trisagion”) for the repose of the departed.

Are we afraid of the evil souls? Do ghosts exist?

As mentioned above, the souls that foretaste paradise, in other words they have the holy grace inside them and possess some holiness (to a bigger or lesser extent), can pray to God for the protection of the living people. But the vision of St. Macarios reveals that souls foretasting hell feel completely isolated. Therefore, it is not possible in any way to return to earth and affect the lives of the living. For this reason, the christians do not believe that “bad” souls are in any way threatening to us. We are not afraid of them, we simply regret for their grief and suffering and pray to God for them.

However, certain places seem to exist that evil spiritual powers have “engulfed” them with their dark and threatening energy. Such places are mainly those where magic rituals are, or where, performed, by invocation of demonic spirits. These spirits (ghosts) are not souls of departed people, even though sometimes they appear to be such.

Similarly, the spirits appearing during “spiritual” ceremonies, during invocation of spirits by sorcerers, mediums or “spiritualists” of any kind, are not souls of dead people, either good or bad. Only with prayer, inside the life of the Church, the living address the deceased – and always address Holy people. All other cases of “communication” between dead and living, that happened and still happen for thousands of years in many civilizations and religions, are at least suspicious. We know from the experience of our holy teachers that the spirits appearing in these cases are not the souls of the dead and that generally they are not what they appear to be, but evil beings seeking to deceive by lying.

A proof of the above is the fact that these spirits can become dangerous to those invoking them. And also, that in places where such invocations are repeatedly performed, evil energy is accumulated that sooner or later discharges to the lives of people.

For these cases, the teaching of the Church and the experience of Christians tell us that:

a) When a person incorporates himself and his life to the global “Body of Christ”, the Church, and receives God’s grace through the sacrament of the holy baptism, the other holy sacraments and the christian life (a life that does not include only participation to the religious ceremonies, but also includes love to our fellowmen and especially the forgiveness of our enemies), then with the help of God he can overpower the evil spiritual forces and expel their influence from his life and the life of his beloved.

b) the church has special spiritual defenses to offer for this cause, like the fervent prayer invoking Jesus Christ, the placement of the Cross (through which Jesus defeated death) to the place having bad energy, the performing of special ceremonies, like exorcism, the sanctification (blessing of water, and then spraying with it), the Holy Oil (blessed oil), e.t.c. However, all these are not “magic”, to perform them and have an automatic effect. We must incorporate them to the true relation with God: they are petitions to God to come in person and help, and He will do that when we will be spiritually ready to accept His therapeutic and saving uncreated Grace. For this reason we must have patience, insistence, trust to God and, even more, repentance for the shortcomings and weaknesses that we surely possess, and ask Him to not only help us, but forgive us for whatever we do, feel, or think against His philanthropist will.

The aim of the church, of the christian priests and of the christian ceremonies is not to serve earthly human needs (like exorcising evil spiritual powers from our lives). Their aim is to help us find and get to know God and help lead us to the eternal life next to Him, which is the paradise. However, within this scope, all the above provide help to our earthly problems, since these problems often impede our salvation.

I conclude this talk, reminding that all spirits are less powerful than Christ (since He created them, and they chose if they want to be good [holy angels] or evil) and more powerful than people. So, the union with Christ is the proper alliance for the protection of people from all maleficient spiritual forces.